 Welcome to the 13th meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2023. Our first item on the agenda this morning is our final evidence session on the Children, Care and Justice Scotland Bill, and I welcome Natalie Dawn, Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise. Good morning. Who is joining us for the first time since being appointed. Good morning. Welcome and congratulations. Alongside the minister today are officials Brendan Rooney, who is the bill manager, Deborah Nolan, the bill team professional advisor, Hazel Crawford, head of children's residential care unit, and Barry McCafferty, solicitor legal directorate. We will begin with an opening statement from the minister. You have five minutes and I will be keeping you to time today, given our bit of an issue with technology. Thank you. No problem. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning members. Can I just start by putting on record my appreciation for the committee's diligent work on this bill today to all witnesses who have appeared before you and those that have responded to your call for views. These efforts have made a huge contribution to the important discourse on how we can improve Scotland's approach to children and young people who come into contact with our care and justice settings. Turning to the bill, Scotland and all the parties in this Parliament committed to keeping the promise by 2030. The Government's implementation plan for the promise was published just over a year ago and received cross-party support. The bill takes forward various key aspects of the promise. It advances rights under the United Nations conventions on the rights of the child and it brings consistency across various parts of legislation to the definition of a child as a person under 18. This approach builds on our getting it right for every child principles and youth justice vision. You will be aware from evidence to committee that there are currently inconsistencies in how Scotland treats particular 16 and 17-year-olds. By raising the maximum age of referral to the reporter, the bill takes action addressing many such discrepancies in how they experience the children's hearing and criminal justice systems and how these two systems interplay. This provides all children the opportunity to access the hearing system in cases where they may need the care and protection of that system or in cases where they are in conflict with the law. Importantly, the bill does not disturb the constitutional independence of the Lord Advocate. Procurators Fiscal will retain the discretion to prosecute children and young people in court where deemed necessary. The bill makes provisions to improve the safeguards available to all children in the criminal justice system. Scotland's courts will still be able to deprive a child of their liberty. Yet, in line with the promise, the bill makes it clear that detention should normally be in a secure accommodation rather than a young offender's institution, at least until that deprivation needs to end or they turn 18 years old. Members of the committee have visited secure centres across Scotland and Pullmont, and you will have seen therefore that YOIs are not primarily designed as bespoke environments for children. Secure care centres are established to be trauma informed in age appropriate settings. They offer a high staff to child ratio of skilled professionals with the specific qualifications required to meet complex care and support needs of these young people. Secure care can and indeed already does care for those children who pose the greatest risk of serious harm. The supervision and support arrangements in secure centres are intensive, and you will have seen from your visits that when a child is placed there, public protection and safety are critical elements. Facilities are locked. I know that stakeholders unanimously express support for ending placement of children in YOIs, but also concerns have been raised about capacity and resourcing. The Scottish Government is not complacent in that area. That is why the Reimagining Secure Care project, which the Children and Young Persons Centre for Justice is undertaking on behalf of the Government, is running in tandem with the bill. Moreover, a national implementation group for the bill is due to start its work in early June. Turning to the matter of cross-border placements, none of us want children and young people to be removed from their communities and placed far away. However, those arrangements need to be able to happen in some exceptional circumstances. I am aware that the committee has heard some powerful evidence of such situations. However, there must be rigor in how they are planned for and implemented in order that those placements are not detrimental to children's rights. That bill will provide powers to ensure that, for temporary placements, responsibility rightly remains with the placing authority who know the child and plan their care. The bill also gives further and more flexible powers to make providers more accountable for those types of cross-border placements. That enables the introduction of further requirements on residential providers, alongside extra powers for the care inspectorate in relation to placement providers. I know that stakeholders have expressed support for the bill but also raised considerations about resourcing more broadly. We are acutely aware of the need to work with partners to prepare for the bill and ensure that systems, settings, policy and practice are ready for it. That is why the multi-agency implementation group planned for June is absolutely crucial. That inception meeting of key partners will help us to explore resource and capacity requirements in more depth, while co-designing governance and oversight for measures. I hope that those opening remarks have been helpful for you and I look forward to answering the committee's questions. We will now move to questions from the committee and I hope that, in the interests of time, one person will be able to respond to the questions. Can I move first to my colleague Stephen Kerr, who will open things up today? Why 18 for the age, the new definition of the age of a child up to the age of 18, why? The UNCRC defines a child as under 18. That is something, as I said in my opening remarks, that has cross-party support. 16 and 17-year-olds are, as I say, still children and they have the best chance of being rehabilitated. Why do we go in chronological age at all? Why do we not go in the age of accountability or responsibility? Some of those 16 and 17-year-olds that we are talking about probably have the mental age of someone much younger. Why are we stuck on chronological age? We are committed to incorporating the UNCRC and that defines a child as under 18. Obviously, in Scotland, there are a number of definitions of a child and there are age-based laws that allow, for example, 16-year-olds to live independently. I think that complexity does not necessarily mean incoherence. In some instances, it can be appropriate to treat young people in the same way as adults that will strengthen their rights, but in other contexts, such as what we are discussing here, such as diversion from the criminal justice system, treating young people in a different way from adults will strengthen their rights. Treating them in this way within the criminal justice system will have the best chance of offering rehabilitation. You can get married when you are 16? Yes, but as I have just said, complexity does not necessarily mean incoherence. It seems somewhat incoherent to me that you can get married when you are 16, but you are saying that the age of a child now is 18. Your Government just brought forward legislation that was going to give children as young as 16 the ability to change their agenda legally. That is incoherent, is it not? I think that, as I said, treating them in this respect within the criminal justice system is a very specific issue. Children that are 16 or 17 will still be able to make decisions for themselves. However, under the criminal justice setting, treating them like this will give them the best chance of rehabilitation. We know that children that are 16 or 17 may not necessarily make decisions based on long-term thinking, and children that are 16 or 17, depending on how they have grown up, and the things that they have been brought up with, may not necessarily understand the full law and what is right and wrong. They might not have a clear depiction of that. I agree with you on that point. In terms of that, I believe that 16 or 17-year-olds should be treated as children within the criminal justice system. I am just pointing out that there are some grave inconsistencies now. Should that change become legislation, there are definitely inconsistencies, which are very hard to stand up. Minister Shuley, you must agree with that. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe that complexity— I know that is your answer, so I will move on. Let us talk about—there are inconsistencies. There are inconsistencies, and they do not stand up. I do not believe that Black Blanket 16 for all the different things that you are discussing is appropriate. No. Mr Keas has already said that he is looking to move on. I am going to move on. This is going to increase the capacity—we are going to have to have an increase in capacity in children's hearings. It is going to increase the demand for the services of children's hearings. What do you estimate that demand increase will be? That is a good point, and I know that the committee has taken evidence that that has raised concerns around capacity for the children's hearings system. We do expect that there could be up to 2,400 hearings, but we are working with the key stakeholders to ensure that capacity is in place. Somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent of an increase in demand for children's hearings, that is what it is going to be, isn't it? I believe so. The number of new volunteers that the children's hearing system is going to have to find— I do not have those figures in front of me, but I would be happy to pass to officials if they are aware of the detail in that. You will see that the financial members have quite an outline of the capacity increases that have been envisaged coming from this. I am aware that children's hearings in Scotland are in front of the committee, and we have worked very closely with children's hearings Scotland and Scral in the forecast. I know that the financial memo talks about the number of hearings, and I know that CHS is latest, which is around 300 or 3,300, quite recently. That is not going to be very easy, is it minister? 300 more volunteers in such a short space of time. What are your concerns about what might happen on the basis of the fact that it is quite difficult to recruit those people currently? I think that what is important is that we have heard evidence that this is going to be possible, that this change is supportive. Do you believe that? Yes, I do. I do believe that. As I said, the committee has heard evidence to this, so it is not necessarily whether I believe it or not is what the key stakeholders are saying. No, you can hear evidence and you can decide for yourself whether you think that the evidence is consistent with what is rational or feasible. Do you think that it is feasible for the children's hearing system to be able to cope with an additional recruitment? On top of the attrition rate, it already has to deal with, and that is an issue already that they are going to be able to have a net increase of 300. Do you think that that is feasible? I think that it is feasible. I do not think that we would be carrying this out if it was not feasible. As I have said, children's hearing Scotland has said that they can cope with this increasing capacity, so I think that the evidence is there for Mr Kerr. What happens if they cannot find their volunteers? Well, I do not really like to speak in hypothetical terms. That is something that we have said that this is going to be possible. Have you considered what might happen if we cannot get the volunteers? Well, this is something that is being worked through and discussed, and this is an on-going process. If there are issues or we see that there will be issues with capacity in terms of that, then that is something that the Scottish Government will absolutely… All I will say to you, minister, is that the recent record of recruitment is that there is a fall-off in the number of volunteers, particularly in the last few years. So there is a real risk that the number of volunteers that are required will not be possible to recruit, and I think that it would be responsible of the Government to be considering what that scenario might look like, given the nature of the demand that we put on the children's hearing system. What about training? Are you completely satisfied that the children's hearing system has the capacity to give the high quality of training that is required, given the fact that they are going to be dealing with this age group and perhaps a different range of offences? I am satisfied. I am confident in that. Again, this is something that children's heathens have said that this will be possible. Obviously, we have the working group under way, and if there are any issues or concerns going forward, then that will be something that we will work through. The Scottish Sensing Council has guidelines for sensing our young people, and they apply to a young person who is under the age of 25 at the time of entering a guilty plea or when they are found guilty of an offence. There have been some cases recently on that. Were those guidelines considered when the bill was being drafted, and if so, why does the bill not go further to provide consistency with regard to the age of a young person in the criminal justice system? The Sensing Council has a statutory duty to periodically review the sentences and guidelines that it publishes. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs intends to meet the chair of the Sensing Council to discuss that work. When doing so, we will raise the general question of how the council plans to keep its guidelines under review, including the guidelines on the sentencing of young people. My question was, were they considered when you were drafting the legislation? Yes, it was considered. Obviously, there has been quite a lot of press coverage on the public outcry on some of the issues around the sensing guidelines and the people of that age. Do you have anything to comment on that? It would not be for a minister to comment on a live case. The committee also heard from Social Work Scotland that, while the bill had the right aspirations and goals, there is a lack of confidence about our ability to deliver due to the resource-impacting social work, the same theme as the questioning from Mr Kerr. How will the Scottish Government support local authorities and their social work teams to implement the bill effectively? I think that that is a kind of similar vein to the questioning from Mr Kerr. It is indeed, yes. As I have said, we are working with the key stakeholders—the Scottish Government is working with the key stakeholders and those involved—to ensure that we can implement this. We are aware of persistent challenges around staff recruitment and retention in the social care sector. Those issues have obviously been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Scottish Government block grant to local government of £13.5 billion is an increase, despite the most challenging budget settlements since devolution. The financial resources are there, but in terms of support, that is something that the Government will be working with local authorities on. What support are you looking to put and give to local authorities regarding their social work teams, not social care services, because we have heard about their recruitment challenges, and some of the training that is going to be required? It is back to what are we doing now to make sure that everyone can go from day 1. In terms of the specific support for social work, I would probably hand over to my official who might give a more clear response to that. I can do that. Obviously, the financial memo predates Mr Don's time in office. The process that we went through to quantify those effects that will stem from the implementation of the bill were engaged with Social Work Scotland and COSLA quite early on on that. They were obviously done in the final third of last year, so they give a snapshot of forecast of increases to social work and resource and capacity that we needed in terms of implementing the bill. However, I would know that there is evidence coming forward at stage 1 from Social Work Scotland and COSLA. I know that they have sent in specific responses. We will come to questions on that COSLA submission later on. I do not want to… You can move the issue forward. In terms of finances, there are a lot of variables in terms of the bill enabling all 16 and 17-year-olds to go to the hearing system. There are still those decision frameworks that the committee has heard about, such as the Lord Advocate's guidelines and the joint referral framework with Scra and the Crown Office, which is supposed to dictate, but they will give more rigor to how those decisions are actually taken. The forecasts were based on quite a lot of variables, but we have quantified them up for what we think with Social Work, but we continue to work with Social Work Scotland. The implementation group that Ms Dawn alluded to next month will be quite key to that. We know that there has been quite a lot of development since the financial memorandum, so it is an evolving policy space and we are very cognisant of what is coming forward at this and other committees to look at those figures and keep those discussions alive. I am not quite sure that there is anything there that would inspire the confidence to Social Work Scotland, but can I move to questions now from Ruth Maguire, please? Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. The bill, as you say, is about advancing children's rights. I would like to cover some areas where concerns have been raised in that regard, specifically around compulsory supervision orders. Concerns have been raised with us that the imposition of an MRC could amount to the deprivation of liberty of a child or young person without legal safeguards. Have you had an opportunity to consider whether there is more that needs to be done in that regard in terms of access to legal representation for young people? MRCs are obviously designed to be less restrictive than secure care. Expanding the circumstances around that will mean that more children can be supported in this way, although I appreciate that the member has concerns about that, but that is where it is deemed appropriate. Safeguards already exist under the Children's Hearing Act 2011 and still do apply, so I do not feel that they need to be added to the bill. The children's hearing is not a sentencing tribe. It makes decisions to safeguard and promote the child's welfare throughout their childhood, not necessarily to punish a child for their actions. An MRC, like any measure through the children's hearing system, can only be imposed if this is better for the child than not. You mentioned and highlighted in your statement the intensive support that accompanies MRCs. Can you give assurances that there will be intensive support whenever an MRC is imposed and to talk a little to the additional resources that will be required to do that? Absolutely. Further to my previous response, an MRC is always associated with the child receiving intensive support. The details of the intensive support that the child will receive will be contained in the movement restriction child's plan. The plan must be practicable to address the immediate and longer-term needs of said child with a view to safeguarding and promoting that child's welfare. MRCs and themselves can be highly individualised and flexible and that will be taken on a case-by-case basis depending on the child. Just for clarity, I think that the specific concern was because it was being decoupled from secure care that the support package would not go with it. Are you being absolutely clear that there will be a package of support for a child who is on a MRC? Yes, as I say, it will be deemed on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances surrounding that child. The other change is in terms of the criteria with it being described as psychological harm and that being a pretty subjective test. What consideration has been given to that in terms of children's rights and what specific safeguards would you put in place to ensure that they were only used in the appropriate circumstances? The new provisions that recognise the current criteria of injury, this is not necessarily a change, it is just a kind of redefinition. The change that I am asking about is a move from something that has a, I am losing my words now, give me a second, so the change to psychological harm is a subjective test. There was some objectivity, I think, in terms of reasonable person perhaps, I might be getting that wrong if I am, forgive me, but that is the specific change that I am looking for your reflections on. It was in terms of safeguards that you mentioned, Jess. I mean, appropriate safeguards remain that any measure must be absolutely necessary, proportionate and in the child's best interests and obviously in limited circumstances to protect the public from serious harm. As I have said, although you are saying that that subjective test was something that was always contained within the definition because psychological injury or psychological harm was always included in the current criteria of injury, sorry, I can see you. I do not want to interrupt, I just feel that it is really quite an important part, I do not appreciate that you are newer to this bill and I do not want to, but I do think that the evidence that we have heard is that there is concern that it is a move to a subjective test rather than having the objective safeguard in there of reasonableness. Well, it is and always has been a matter for the panel members to decide what impact the child behaviour has either on themselves or others and whether that criteria is made. I think that I will bring Debbie in for this, just because I know that you would like to give him more information on that. Yeah, so I think our position is that there has always been a level of subjectivity there. The test has previously been the same as the secure care test, as you mentioned, so that was likely to cause injury to another person. What we have tried to do is recognise in this context that injury might be broader than physical injury, which actually, previous tests did not specify physical injury, but our concern was that that was how that was being interpreted in practice. Panel members always had to determine that this child was likely to cause injury to someone else, now it is likely to cause physical or psychological harm. So, we do not deem that it is necessarily a broadening and we do not necessarily deem that it is more subjective. However, we are obviously listening to stakeholders that have told us that they feel that it is too subjective and if we will revisit this and if that is the conclusion that we reach, we can look at making some amendment to that criteria, but our position as it stands is that we do not think that it is too broad or too subjective. We think that that is building on what is already there. I think that, so you are saying building on it. I find it quite interesting to say that we feel that there is no change when it clearly is widening it. I am not necessarily disagreeing, I just think that it is important to be really clear about any potential risk in broadening it or any potential benefit. I mean, it is not more of the same, it is different. I think that there is a clear benefit there. Right now, the test is about injury. So, actually, if that is narrowly interpreted as physical injury, then when we have a context where, for example, a child was stalking another child or maybe there was domestic violence or coercive control in the relationship, if we narrowly took the interpretation of injury as physical injury, those types of behaviours would not be covered and therefore that child would not be able to be considered for a movement restriction condition. Therefore, what we try to do is broaden that recognition to recognise a wider range of behaviours. I think that partners in victims organisations, as well as Police Scotland, have been supportive of that change, recognising that that does cover a broader cohort of behaviours. In terms of the potential risks, there are risks with any change. We know that. However, we are not going to introduce the legislation without considering the guidance, training and support that decision makers require alongside that. To implement those changes in practice, that will absolutely be a focus of the implementation group. What sort of provisions need to be put in place to support decision makers to use those changes in practice and minimise any potential unintended consequences or risks that might come from this change? Okay, thank you. That's helpful. My final question is about the effectiveness of MRCs. The policy memorandum for the bill says that no evaluation is being carried out on the effectiveness of MRCs. How will effectiveness be evaluated going forward? Sorry, as I've previously said, an MRC, like any measure through the children's healing system, can only be imposed if this is better for the child than not. It is necessary, and where it meets the welfare of the child, as a paramount consideration. It is also in recognition that an MRC is intended to be a restriction on a child's liberty and not a deprivation. As I said at the beginning, this is the most extreme prior to secure care. In terms of effectiveness, if a child does not comply with an order, the local authority must notify the children's reporter to require a review of that order. A children's healing will reconsider the child's whole circumstances to consider if any additional or alternative measures are needed to address the child's behaviour. The scheduling of those hearings are prioritised, given the potential requirement for more restrictive measures to be put in place. As with other elements of a child's plan, including the risk management plan, monitoring and review, including whether risk and vulnerabilities and potential adverse outcomes are absolutely key. That will be something that can be reviewed and monitored on an on-going basis. I did not get a sense of there, sorry, to come in on how you would be evaluating that, but maybe when you are responding to Mr Doris' supplementary, you might be able to pick out a bit more on the evaluation of the MRCs. I think that that would be very helpful. I welcome to your position, minister. I think that the exchange with Mr Agwar was really helpful. I think that the committee has a better understanding of the policy intent behind the changes to the terminology of movement restrictions and conditions. If that needs to be tightened up, I think that the committee would welcome that, and we will stage one report in due course. However, we have repeatedly heard of the challenges with the changes to MRCs. We have not heard very much about potential opportunities, and I would not want that to get lost within our stage one report. Can the minister take the opportunity to talk about what the opportunities might be in relation to—I am assuming that—an MRC is less restrictive than secure, which might be better for a young person or a young person insecure? That is a big job to have a full restoration of liberty. An MRC could be deployed as part of a pathway back into the community, but we have not heard very much about that, so would you anticipate more MRCs being used after the bill is passed? Yes, how would that be monitored? The committee is absolutely right, and what might the potential benefits be? Absolutely. I do not want to foresee anything, but it could very well be the fact that there would be more MRCs following the enactment of the bill. To date, there have been very few MRCs being used in practice, and that is perhaps something due to the consistency in the tests. As a result of the fact that there have been very few MRCs to date, there has been limited options to assess or evaluate their use and effectiveness. However, as has already been detailed in evidence to the committee and via the call for views, it is recognised that MRCs, in certain circumstances, can be a very effective measure to support children to remain in the community. As you said, secure care will be a very punitive measure, so it is to allow them to stay within the community, although they are still with that restriction and whilst being provided with intensive support and appropriate restrictions on their movements. It is given another option prior to that final placement in a secure care setting. What I hear, convener, is that the committee's question about how that will be monitored becomes more and more pertinent. We have heard in evidence sessions witnesses saying that we do not want to set young people up to fail by putting an MRC in place that will find it really tough to comply with. You mentioned that, should there be breaches of MRCs, there would be a review of the order in place and that a fresh children's panel will be held. I think that that would pretty much have to be done in short order if MRCs were instead of a secure accommodation disposal by the children's panel. What are the assurances? Can you give perhaps follow-up in writing how quickly children's panels are set up to carry that review? Have that children's panel and decide whether the MRC needs to be reviewed, kept in place or, indeed, the young person moved on to secure? There is a lot in there, minister, so do your best to unpick that one. There is. In my previous response, I did advise that the scheduling of those hearings for the reviews of MRCs will be prioritised, given that potential need for further restrictive measures or looking around it. We absolutely do not want to put the onus on the child, so that is why that will be reviewed and on-going. If there are any potential changes or further improvements that can be made in terms of monitoring that or evaluating the effectiveness of that, then that is certainly something that can be taken forward. At the moment, because I have said that we are relying on such a limited number of MRCs, it is just that it is harder to give that sort of data our reassurance. We are going to jump back a little bit, because Pam Duncan-Glancy has a supplementary on one of our earlier things that I admitted to bringing in, so apologies. Let us move to Pam Duncan-Glancy, please. Thank you, convener, and I appreciate the opportunity to go back a bit. I welcome the minister to her new role. I want to go back to some of the questions that my colleague Stephen Kerr raised around age. The financial memorandum minister notes that, in practice, the cut-off to access the children's hearing is going to be about 17 and a half years, not 18. Witnesses have argued that that could be an arbitrary date and that it could also be because of the lengthy waits that Sheriff Mackay has said has left children lingering in the system and could contravene the UNCRC, which you yourself have said is incredibly important to that. Is the delay in the system, the real reason 17 and a half has been mentioned, justifiable on any other grounds than slow processing? How will the minister make the bill compatible with the UNCRC when you bring it back, if that is the case? First of all, I thank you for the question. There has to be a cut-off somewhere, logistically, when you are looking at this. There absolutely has to be. Obviously, the bill raises the age of referral of the principal report to the team. However, as the members mentioned, as detailed in the financial memorandum, due to the time taken for a referral to the reporter to progress and for adhering to convene and put meaningful measures in place, which can take effect, it is expected that the Lord Advocate, when reviewing the current guidelines, will consider if a formalised cut-off age is needed so that an offence can still be appropriately dealt with. We have obviously said that for those going into secure care, you could enter into secure care possibly up to your 19th birthday. This is to allow those children who would be sentenced—perhaps a short sentence, just prior to their 18th birthday—to not enter into a young offender's institution. It is that safeguard there, but I am sure that the member will agree that, because we are looking at the rights of a child, there has to be a cut-off somewhere. I would say that that is logistic. I appreciate that, but in that answer, ministers, there were three cut-offs. There are 17.5, 18 and 19. Which one is it? The UNCRC says that the relevant date is the date on which the alleged offence, if we call it that, happened. Surely, that should be the relevant date. It is not being formalised yet, but it is something that will be going forward. As I have said, we do not have a formalised cut-off date at the moment. We have said that, in terms of safeguarding and protection of children, we have allowed it to go up to 19 for secure care centres. At the moment, we are saying 17.5, but there is not a formalised cut-off date. Okay, thank you. The committee has heard from victims of offences that are committed by children are not given the breadth of information that could be afforded to victims of offences by adults. Has the minister considered whether a more equitable approach to providing such information to all victims of crime will be given further consideration? That is a really finely balanced area in terms of upholding the rights of the person who is committed to the offence and, of course, the victim. That has been something that has had very strong considerations. Crucially, at the end of the day, children's hearings are not criminal justice settings. As I have just said, the rights of the victim within those settings must be really carefully balanced against the rights of the child in question. I know that evidence provided that you have already heard and, via your written calls for evidence, have highlighted the range of views on that matter and the challenges that are faced in balancing. That fine balancing act that I have spoken about, I consider that the bill strikes the right balance between the needs of victims and the principles that inform and underpin the children's hearings system. To reassure the member, we have listened carefully to the points that were made on information sharing during the evidence sessions and will continue to do so as the bill progresses through Parliament. What conversations have you had with the information commissioner with regards to that? Having been very new to the role that is not a conversation that I myself have had, I will pass over to my officials. In the course of last year, in formulating the provisions and drafting of the bill, there was on-going engagement with the information commissioner's office. It is a statutory obligation of that. That was done across the bill, not just on this particular issue. I know that I was a representative who gave evidence on it as well. As Ms Donne said, the principles of UNCRC and the ethos on which the hearing system was founded upon the bill does not make seismic changes to the hearing system's approach and how that has been for children and certain children that are 16 and 17 up to now who are already going through that system. It was a lot raised on it in our consultation. Views were quite polarised on where that should go. However, the crucial point about it not being a criminal justice setting and the principles that the hearing system is founded on still ringing true is where it has been approached. As Ms Donne said, we are listening to what is coming forward. We hear a lot of the views coming and considering that. I look forward to what the committee has to say at stage 1 report on the issue as well to buttress that. I just have one final question that is short. Sheriff Mackay noted that restorative justice allows victims to participate and the hearing system does not have that. What can you do to make that happen so that victims can feel that justice is served? There are updated regulations within the bill that allow the hearing system to update the witness on not necessarily the outcome of the hearing system but to give details on when that will be taking place. We absolutely recognise that restorative justice seeks to ensure the needs of those who are harmed and that their voices are absolutely central. That can support accountability and responsibility for those children who cause harm. Scottish ministers are funding posts within the children and young people's centre for justice to support the development of those restorative justice services because we recognise that requirements and the needs of those accessing the service might differ when those young people are involved. That is under way and a priority. Interesting to see and learn how that develops. I move to questions now from Bill Kidd, please. Thank you very much, convener, and welcome to the minister and your team here today. I do not want to go over things that you might think we have covered already, but to talk a wee bit more about age ranges and such like. Supervision or guidance of post-18-year-olds is an important aspect. I do think that because of the variations amongst young people in terms of their developmental processes, it is important to look at the idea of an age limit, not being a cliff edge of support. That has come up during multiple evidence sessions. It is important that we know what consideration the Scottish Government and the bill team has given to that and what might be done to encourage successful transitions from the age group of 16-17 when someone becomes 18. I have already touched on that in previous responses, but we considered extending compulsory measures beyond 18 using the children's hearing system, but the system itself is completely designed around making decisions about compulsory orders on children with relevant persons having rights to the child. The test that is currently applied is that compulsory orders can only be made if necessary to safeguard or promote welfare throughout childhood. Any extension beyond the age of 18 would require an entirely new framework for the system, and the test that is needed to justify compulsion beyond childhood would require to be altered and restated to accommodate the rights of that young adult. That could also cause capacity issues in the system, and volunteer panel members would require to be trained and supported in decision making in relation to young people, as opposed to children. That has not been taken forward, and I know that in the written evidence SCRI agreed with that approach. I think from what you have said, which is perfectly reasonable as far as it goes, that we have to hope that when a post-18-year-old is then moved into the next stage that there are people who are trained and capable in that stage to be able to help someone forward, rather than just saying, well, that's your age now, so too bad. If you know what I mean, I don't want you. No, absolutely. We don't want it to just be a case of, well, that's your 18, so you can just kind of get on and deal with it, absolutely. Obviously, that is specific to under-18s, but in many areas Scotland is still developing a really distinct approach to young people aged between 18 and 25 years. That includes, for example, the Scottish Sentencing Council's guidelines, and I've already touched on that, the extension of the whole system approach under the youth justice vision and youth court pilots, and that will all continue to be monitored to provide learning for future considerations for those between 18 and 25, but absolutely we want the support to be there for that age. That's useful to know. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Kidd, and now can we go back to questions from Mr Bob Doris, please? Thank you very much. A couple of brief questions, Minister. The Bill includes a number of provisions seeking to enhance the rights of children who have been detained in police custody that they currently would not have. Could you maybe expand on what you feel those provisions are and how they will benefit young people in those situations? I'm sorry, Mr Doris. I missed the very beginning of your question. At the moment, young people, depending on whether part of the children's system already, or 16 or 17 years that are not, don't have the same rights in police custody. That will extend additional rights to young people in relation to police custody. Can you say a little bit, Minister, about what those are and what benefits those will be for young people? Absolutely, Mr Doris. Thank you for repeating that for me. The Bill increases the opportunities for local authority notifications and visits, so that includes the ability for local authority to advise that information should not be sent to a parent or a named adult if they feel that that might be detrimental to the wellbeing of that child. The aim in that is to ensure that every child has an appropriate person notified and that no child is left in police custody without being visited by either a parent, another adult or the local authority. Second to that, the Bill also extends considerations for keeping children in a place of safety prior to attendance at court, as well as helping to ensure that a solicitor is present during police interviews. I know that Police Scotland provided evidence on how the current provisions work in practice, and the Scottish Government are in on-going dialogue with Police Scotland on the potential implications of this Bill in this light. Okay, thanks, Minister. I want to dwell on this aspect when I'm pretty uncontentious part of the legislation, but I would note that I think that young people are not able to waive their right legal representative there, which is an additional protection. I did nudge witnesses last week about whether or not that young people should never be detained in a police station or otherwise. I'm not saying that necessarily in my view, Minister, but it has been suggested that a place of safety should never be a police station unless, impractical, there's that word again, Minister, that I'm now stumbling over. I ask you whether you think that there is a case where it should be in the face of the Bill that no young person should ever be detained in a police station or if that's not the case in what circumstances you think would be unavoidable? I think that that's something that we would absolutely like to work towards, but at the moment I'm not entirely sure that that is logistically possible. The law at the moment requires that police must take every precaution to ensure that a person is not unreasonably or unnecessarily held in police custody and a number of incidents at the present moment are dealt with in the community and there has been no need to arrest the children or bring them into police custody at all. The Lord Advocate has issued guidelines on that separately and in deciding to bring a child into police custody there are a number of various factors that are considered, including the rights of that specific child, the possibility of interference with victims or witnesses, the severity of the offence and the need to fully investigate the offence, so there are issues there that could make an impact on whether that child needs to be brought into police custody. When an arrest is absolutely necessary, currently the police must, by law, take all arrested persons and that includes children to a police station and this could be necessary, as I say, to prevent further offending, to facilitate investigations such as capturing fingerprints, photographs or DNA and the decision to keep a person in custody must comply with Lord Advocate's guidelines. I think that this is something that we would definitely like to work towards. It wasn't consulted on as part of this bill because there are, as I say, logistical issues around how that takes place, but that's something that we can certainly look at and go on forward. That's helpful, minister, no further questions. The committee did hear from Social Work Scotland Minister that it's almost inconceivable that police custody will not have to be used for under-18s and the important line is for a number of years to come. How would the minister respond to that point? Will local authorities be expected to use secure care as an alternative to custody? If so, what are the cost implications of that? Secure care would be a very much a last resort for police custody in terms of the costings for that. I would probably have to hand over it to officials to give the costings. I think that on that point, secure care can only be used in very limited circumstances if a child is in police custody. All other alternative places of safety should be being considered. The legislation is very clear that secure care is one of a range of places of safety, but if a child is going to be placed in secure care, they would still have to meet the secure care criteria, which isn't always the case. In that situation, a child couldn't be placed in secure care. The costs for secure care are in excess of £6,000 a week, so there would be cost implications if secure care was to be considered. However, the cost implications are almost secondary. That trial has to meet the secure care criteria to be placed in secure care as opposed to police custody. The drive should be to look at what alternative places of safety can be used in that situation. There is work on going with local authorities and the Scottish Police Authority at the current time looking at what are the approaches to places of safety, what alternatives can be used and what else might need to be developed or considered in these situations. I come back to you then, Ms Nolan. Does that mean that we can foresee that police custody will be used for under-18s for a number of years to come? I don't think that we can forecast for how long, but I think that what we can say is that there is a consensus across the board that we should not be keeping children in police custody firstly, but secondly or longer terming that we don't need to bring children into police custody at all. There are plans and work under way to try to achieve those realities involving a range of stakeholders and a range of partners to make that a reality. How long that work will take, we don't know, because it's fundamentally linked to other developments that are taking place as well. Thank you for that. Can I move to questions now from Ben Macpherson, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister and to your officials. I've just got a number of questions around the restrictions on reporting. First of all, you'll be aware that stakeholders have called for greater legal certainty around when reporting restrictions begin to apply to child suspects, witnesses and suspected victims. Therefore, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of those calls and will the legislation be strengthened in this regard as we go into the further stages? Before court proceedings where a suspected offence involves children, those children, including victims and witnesses, will benefit from automatic reporting restrictions. A court can currently dispense with reporting restrictions only if that is in the interests of justice. This extended protection is important as the implications of a child being identified are similar and significant at whatever stage proceedings are at. If identified during a police investigation, that undermines the protection offered by the presumption of anonymity during subsequent court proceedings. This is something that we are in direct response to the minister's question. Sorry. Mr Macpherson's question, this is something that we are considering. Sorry, I'm thinking that a few weeks past. Thank you minister for your answer. Just by way of a follow-up and in that constructive spirit of your response, I just want to draw attention not necessarily for answer today but for consideration into the further part of stage 1 and into stage 2 response 97066875 by Dr Andrew Tickell and Sinead Stevenson McCabe from Glasgow Caledonian University. They have made some comments about the new reporting restrictions. Of course, since the bill's publication and in recent weeks we have seen the publication of the victims bill, I would be grateful if the Government could consider the points around consistency with regard to those pieces of legislation in terms of complainer anonymity and the comparisons between the two bits of legislation. I just want to raise that point. Feel free to take it away. Absolute. I can make a brief response to that. This is something that the Government will continue to assess. Any potential differences and provisions between the two bills. As noted in the policy memorandum for the bill, the Scottish Government did commit in its 2022 programme for government to introduce a bill that will make provision granting a statutory right of automatic lifelong anonymity to complainers in sexual offence cases. The victim witnesses and justice reform bill delivers on that commitment by providing for an automatic lifelong right of anonymity to the victims and other offences of limited scope, which share the same underlying concerns. It should be noted that the provisions governing restrictions on publication of identifying information in so far as the extent to victims offence cases in this bill and certain other limited offences are subject to change in the future, given the planned provisions on automatic anonymity for complainers, as Mr MacPherson has referred to. For assurance, we will continue to assess any differences and provisions between the two bills, as each continue to go forward under parliamentary scrutiny. Minister, provisions in the bill will ensure that no child under the age of 18 can be held in a young offender's institution or prison either on remand while awaiting sentence or having been sentenced, including for very serious crimes. Could the minister expand on the rationale for including serious crimes, or all crimes, in the policy for the detention of young people and have any concerns about the policy being raised by victims, organisations or others, particularly in regard to the serious offending and what are their concerns and how might they be laid? There is a lot in there, hopefully. The key priority is that the Scottish Government is committed to keeping children out of prison, and that is the key word, children. We are classed in 16 and 17-year-olds as children. When looking at the heating system, it is not based on the specific offence or the specific age in terms of secure care. Secure care already deals with some of the most serious offences, so they are already equipped to deal with children who have committed serious offences. Those at the moment are under 16, but I know that the committee has heard strong evidence from secure care that they are equipped and able to deal with 16-17-year-olds who have committed those serious offences. I go back to what I said at the beginning. While I appreciate that there are concerns around that, the Lord Advocate still has the right to try a child in a criminal court, although it will end in a secure care setting rather than a YOI. Back to what I was saying in my opening comments to Mr Kerr. It is about rehabilitation of the child and, given that child, the best chance to not re-offend again. A secure care centre is not probably the most appropriate setting for that to be the case. What would you say in response to some of the challenges and criticism from the victims' organisations around that to allay the concerns that they might have? What might you specifically say to those organisations? I would specifically say that this is something that we will continue to monitor. We will work with the secure care. We will work with local authorities. We are in discussions with them now. This is not something that I am shying away from, but as I have clearly said, and as the committee has heard strong evidence on, the secure care centres have said that they are equipped to manage that and are comfortable with that. Obviously, we also have the reimagining secure care project under way. That is something that may feed back into that. It is not something that we are not looking at. It is something that we are working on and happy to take any feedback as we go on from that. Thank you minister. Stephanie Callaghan, can I come to you now for your questions? Yes, certainly. Thank you very much. I am switched on. I couldn't hear myself there. Minister, whether the children, young people in secure care are secured in welfare or offence grounds, they are the most highly vulnerable and highlight risk in Scotland. In this bill, we will bring changes for secure accommodation providers because we will be accommodating older young people and those who have committed serious offences, as the convener spoke about there. First, what care and support needs are you anticipating for those young people with the most serious offences? Secondly, how will staff who are currently working in secure care settings be trained and supported to do that role? There is a range of measures under way, and that is absolutely under consideration. Secure care is more appropriate for 16 and 17-year-olds, as I have already mentioned, the environment is age-appropriate and child-centred with focused work to help address the child-specific behaviours. A therapeutic and educational setting, as I have already referred to, can help lead children to healthier development, better outcomes and decrease the likelihood of future offending. Secure care is the right setting to better support children who require to be deprived of their liberty to address those underlying needs and causes of the behaviours to help children to reintegrate, recover, rehabilitate and desist, which in turn will reduce future victims and will benefit society as a whole. I do not see children or not many adults the propensity for a child to alter the behaviour and change their path can be far, far greater than adults, and that is something that I have already referred to this morning. Safe and trusting relationships are the absolute cornerstone of promoting children's healthy development and positive outcomes. Through the provision of 24-7 care, the relationships that secure care staff can provide are absolutely key. I know that that was something that the member mentioned specifically. The knowledge, skills, training and ratios of staff, often 2-1, are supportive to the development of such relationships. Staff and secure care centres must be registered and qualified in relation to care and education. The care-based child centre to ethos and environment secure care affords is supported by the centres and registered, monitored and inspected by the care inspector and Education Scotland. I hope that that goes to answer the member's question. Thank you for that answer. There is really a change. There will be a lot more time with those people who have committed serious offences as well. The care providers were very supportive of the bill, but they are also very, very clear about the fact that there are very real risks around accommodating those older young people. Sometimes they are very serious or sometimes even gruesome offences have been committed. We take those risks really seriously. Obviously, there is a huge amount of importance around their expertise, but what they have been talking about as well is looking to be able to group children and young people together in groups that are quite safe, et cetera, there as well. Can you give some reassurance that you will be working closely with those directly involved in secure care, because they have the expertise in the specialist training, as you said, to understand those complex needs and really be working with them to find a way forward in this? Absolutely. As I have mentioned earlier, each child's care, even within a secure care centre, is focused on a case-by-case basis. That is defined by the child and what that child needs in terms of support. Secure accommodation centres already utilise a range of interventions and strategies to meet the needs of all children to ensure that their safety is maintained and that risk is managed. That is important for what the member was referring to in terms of those most serious offences. Risk assessment and risk management frameworks allow for decisions about the level of care, the supervision and restrictions on a child to be bespoke, proportionate and tailored to the needs of that specific child. That is what I was referring to in terms of a case-by-case basis. That is both to ensure their safety and the safety of those others in that secure centre. We have no plans to change that or separate children placed in secure based on considerations such as the route into secure care, age or offence type, but all that will be monitored. Yes, absolutely. We will listen, work with and continue to monitor that as we go forward. Just a very short question, I suppose, as well, just to check that you will be happy to build in. When you are doing that work alongside providers, you will be happy to build in and take seriously any need for flexibility and infrastructure, et cetera, to make sure that they are able to work effectively with those young people. Absolutely, that is something that we will be taking into consideration. I have my eye on the clock, Minister. We are going next in the session, but we still need some really concise responses as well as concise questions that have been moved forward. I move to Willie Rennie, please. Thank you very much, convener, and welcome to the minister to our new position. Do you have an estimate about how many additional places will require insecure units as a result of this change? Yes, sorry, I do have figures in front of me, but at the moment, figures tend to fluctuate, so I do not necessarily want to put an exact figure on it and say that that is going to be the case going forward. At the moment, there are currently five under-18s in Young Offenders Institute, and, as of 2 May, there were seven places vacant. I know that, from previous figures that have changed in the lead-up to this committee, it has generally been around that level. When we went to Pullmont, we saw that the NHS was integrated into the Young Offenders Institute and they were directly providing the NHS care. It seemed that they were able to get everything that they needed when they needed it because of that specialist-dedicated support. We did not have independent verification that the service was to the standard that we would like, but, nevertheless, it was provided directly. That is not the case with the secure units. Have you got any plans to change that? Secure care centres currently have trained practitioners and professionals that are based either within that secure care or specialists that they can bring in to respond to the needs of children within their care. At the moment, there are no plans to change legislation around access to health professionals. However, officials are working with mental health colleagues to consider the specialist healthcare needs that many children in secure care might require and what additional supports are available or could be made available within the community. As I say, that is something that will continue to be monitored throughout the passage of the bill and further forward. When we went to a secure unit, we saw that, through the good efforts of the staff there, they had built up good relationships with the local health providers. There were issues sometimes when the individuals came from health boards outside the area, so the continuity of care was an issue. However, it was mostly done by the connections and the good service and the integration was done by their goodwill. That is not guaranteed to always be the case. Is that a possibility that you could look at the NHS providing direct support to make sure that it is more co-ordinated and seamless in the future? Is that a possibility? As I have said, that is something that will be monitored to go on, so I do not rule anything out. Just in response to your point, something else that we are currently looking at, we are committed to funding the interventions for vulnerable youth service, which is currently hosted at Cibyl. Members might be aware of that. IV is a specialist psychological and social work service, which provides three types of service, professional consultation and advice, psychological assessment and psychological intervention for children who risk of harm to others. That can include support to those on the edge of secure care and those within secure care settings. That is something that we are committed to currently, but, in terms of going forward, I would not rule anything out. There are quite a lot of young people placed in the secure units from outside Scotland. We have had reports that some of those authorities are paying higher rates than the funding provided through the Scottish system. Are we dependent on those places to keep the secure units adequately funded? Are you comfortable with those differential rates? At the moment, we have been quite clear that we believe that cross-border placements need to be reduced. I do not want to say that it ended entirely, because, as I have already mentioned this morning, there are exceptional circumstances where those are required to go ahead. In terms of funding for secure care, the member will be aware that the Scottish Government is currently funding the last bed in the secure care centres to keep capacity for children in Scotland. That is helping with the capacity and funding issues, but, again, that is something that will need to be monitored going forward. I am meeting with Claire Coutinho, the minister within the UK Government, to discuss the issue of cross-border placements. I have just had my meeting finalised with her this morning, so, while that is just a kind of introductory meeting at the moment, the issue of cross-border placements will be coming up. Regardless of the financial circumstances, it is something that we do want to see minimised and only used. We are deemed absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of that child. Can I just go back? Mr Sarraini, some of those questions were assigned to one of our colleagues, your colleagues for later on. Oh, are they? Yeah. All right. But that is fine. You know, I can conclude on that point, I don't think that it was under. Sorry. It is connected with what additional resource will be required to provide the extra places within the secure units. You have indicated the kind of scale of it, but have you done some calculations around what work will be required in those secure units? Absolutely, this is on-going work. The full details for what we currently have at the moment are set out in the financial memorandum. I am just going to pass over to my officials to go through some of that in more detail, if you are happy to come in, Brendan. Yeah, Mr Sarraini. I mean, I know that there has been evidence that the kind of commercial viability factor for secure care centres runs at about 90 per cent occupancy levels, and that sort of commercial element of it will be there and sort of always exist. So, and we are looking at, you know, secure care capacity training accommodation across the estate alongside the bill, but the cross-border element of it is still there. The bill takes measures to try and, you know, disincentivise that alongside, along with the ethos of the promise and kind of wider government ambition. So, you know, the figures are sort of looked at within that context, but I suppose the numbers going to secure care will always fluctuate. You know, numbers of children over, I think, a 10-year period coming before Scottish courts are down something like 8 to 5 per cent. So, there are huge strides that have been made over recent years on kind of numbers of children coming into contact with criminal justice services or offending, but the numbers for secure care and cross-border sort of do fluctuate, but the measures in the bill are designed to sort of disincentivise the commercialisation of the current cross-border element to those placements. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Pam Duncan-Clancy, do you want to take your briefs up on the steam now? I will. I will do. Thank you, convener, and I've listened carefully to the responses that you just gave. The committee also understands that the pilot to fund and retain the one bed in secure centres will be extended to March 24, however there's not anything included in the bill, so how will that be addressed going forward? I suspect that my colleagues will pick up more on the finances, but given the answers that we've just had, I'm quite worried about the financial sustainability of the system because I don't see much of that backfilling in the financial memorandum. I think that we need to recognise the wider backdrop so that this will, over time, be a saving for society and for public expenditure going forward. As I've said, the financial memo sets out the headline cost and was produced via in-depth engagement with partners and duty bearers. Given the nature, as my officials have pointed out, given the nature of care and justice services, there is a really high degree of variability, so it can be difficult perhaps to forecast, but the Scottish Government has not wanted to avoid underestimating in many areas, so obviously there are high financial implications, but as I've said, it is important to recognise the wider backdrop that the benefits that these change programmes could have for society and public expenditure going forward. I think that you had another question tacked on to that, sorry, miss. It's specifically about the cross-border gap, so if a lot of secure care has said that the cross-border placements really do sustain it, as my colleague Willie Rennie has highlighted, how are you going to fill that gap? You originally asked in terms of the last beds if this is going to be increased, so we don't require legislative change for that. That will be something that is taken forward, not necessarily within the implications of this bill. I didn't quite get the answer to your second question around the funding element, but maybe colleagues can pick it up under the financial aspect of things. As I've said, this tends to fluctuate. I'm more than happy to write to the committee with more information on the exact costings around that, as we move forward, if that's something that the committee would like. The bill does not include any measures to end restraint in secure accommodation, and this has been described as a missed opportunity. With stakeholders, stating legislation will be needed to make progress on this issue. How is the Scottish Government going to address the issue of restraint? Following consideration of the responses to the consultation, I am content that there is already sufficient legislative provision to enable secure transport to be utilised when necessary and to ensure the safety of the train. Sorry, I am not asking about secure transport. I am asking about restraint in secure accommodation. That's fine, thank you, convener. I'm happy to get to your question. I know that that's something that was raised during the evidence sessions and during the written evidence. Apologies. As I said, looking through the consultation and following careful consideration of the responses to the consultation, the Scottish Government is content that additional legislative provision in relation to restraint is not necessary to ensure the safety of the child and others. That is because an overly prescriptive approach to minimising restraint practices could bring adverse consequences around escalation and criminalisation, and instead ministers consider that a blended framework of regulation guidance, practice support and precise reporting are likely to best serve Scotland's children. Work is on-going with partners to reduce and, where possible, completely eliminate the use of restraint in respect of children in care. That includes working with the Scottish Physical Restraint Action Group to explore definitions of restraint along with the availability of data, training and support. When we visited Pullman, it was literally two or three days after the first-ever use of soft cuffs, so in terms of the roll-out of that as a method of restraint and a progress, I suppose, of it being less painful, a pain-free method of restraint, is that something you are looking to make standard? That's something that could certainly be considered, yes. So we are now going to move on to questions regarding transport from my colleague Ross Greer. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to come back to the point of standards around secure transport, specifically points around restraint, but just to start off with, minister, you'll be familiar with the evidence that the committee has received around provision of secure transport and the anecdotal evidence that we've had that most secure transport providers are based in England, and there are instances of a young person being taken from one side of Glasgow to the other or from Montrose to Ninewell's hospital and they need to call up transport from south of London. Portsmouth, I think, was one of the examples given. Does the Scottish Government recognise that there is an issue with availability of secure transport provision in Scotland, and why do you think that's the case? We've been trying to find out from witnesses in past sessions, is this a question of market failure, is it about procurement practices, is there something else going on? It seems a significant problem if we're having to call up cars from Portsmouth to take somebody on a half-hour journey across one city in Scotland. Absolutely, and yes, do recognise that this is a problem. In terms of exactly why, I wouldn't want to say exactly, although there could be issues around the fact that this isn't a regulated or a registered service, so I can confirm that further consideration is under way as to who is best placed to provide that service and that secure transport going forward. That includes consideration of whether secure transport should be a regulated, registered service and who should do so, which should provide more solidity around that. I welcome that minister, just to clarify that. Is that consideration being undertaken as part of this bill, i.e. with a view to or being open to the potential for amendments at stage two or three that would, for example, give ministers the regulation making powers if the decision was taken to regulate and establish a registration system? Yes, that would go forward with the bill, so that is something that we're currently looking at. Fantastic. On the question of standards in transport, you mentioned a minute ago on the wider issue of the use of restraint in secure accommodation provision, that you're looking at a mix of regulation guidance and precise reporting. One of the issues that's been made very clear to us is there's no consistency in reporting around the use of restraint in a transport setting. Sometimes the secure accommodation provider is informed by the transport provider, sometimes they're not, sometimes the local authority might be informed, sometimes they won't. As part of what you've just said, their consideration to amendments is the Government considering a consistent reporting requirement on transport providers, or whoever responsibility would lie with the consistent reporting requirement could be on the accommodation provider, and it's then a known on them to find out from the transport provider. Is the Government now considering some kind of consistency, a requirement for consistency in reporting instances of restraint in transport? I think that would make sense, given if it is decided that it would be better to bring that into a sort of regulated service, because at the moment, as Mr Greer has mentioned, information on the use of handcuffs during secure transport is, well, it's arranged by local authorities, it's not held centrally, so there are issues around that, so in short answer to your question, yes, that's again something that can be considered. Thanks, Rachael. In the interest of time, given that most of my questions were angled at persuading the Government to move in this direction, you're currently already moving in it. Just on principle, does the Government think that there is ever a situation in which the use of handcuffs in a transport setting would be appropriate? If it was to protect the child itself or to protect other people, then that would be a decision for the person, so I don't know if I'm best to say yes or no, because I wouldn't be dealing with the incident, I wouldn't be dealing with what has been involved, but I can understand why there could be instances where restraint would be necessary, but it's about ensuring that this is only done in extreme or exceptional circumstances that it's carried out appropriately. Can we move to some questions led by my vice convener, Mr Ben Macpherson, please? There's been some mention throughout the different subjects on the financial considerations and the resourcing of the implementation of this bill, should it be enacted. I just wanted to ask and colleagues may have follow-ups. The financial memorandum estimates costs are between £5.36 million and £6.56 million per annum to local government. Will the Scottish Government provide this additional funding? What engagement has it had with COSLAW on this matter? Witnesses have suggested that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs to local government, so I'd be grateful for consideration on that comment from the minister. The financial memo sets out the headline costs and was produced via very in-depth engagement with partners and duty bearers. Given the nature of care and justice services, there is a high degree of variability involved. As I've mentioned to other members, it is important to recognise that wider backdrop of the benefits that the change programmes could have on society going forward. The negative costs to society, both economic and social, of offending and crime and all the rest, are very well documented. For instance, the promise followed the money report estimates that the cumulative private costs—physical and emotional harm—lost output and public surface costs to be upwards of £3.9 billion. When you look at that, there is a huge amount of money being spent on that. Although that looks like large costs going forward, putting those balances off against each other, there could be real potential there. I think that the points that you make about preventative spending and the positive impact on that in terms of society and the public finances are absolutely well understood and within the Christy principles. In terms of getting to that point, the implementation of the bill will require investment from local government and areas where central government has responsibility. As we take the bill on its journey through Parliament, there will need to be consideration around the feedback that has been received from local government and social work Scotland as to what sunk costs will be required in terms of the implementation in order to make sure that we get on that trajectory towards preventative spend. If you do not have any further comment today, that is understandable. However, I would be interested in what engagement your colleagues have had with COSLA on those matters and how you intend to work through the practicalities of the financial considerations when it comes to implementation. Thank you, Mr McPherson. No, we are not complacent. We understand that new investment is needed to implement the bill measures and the costs associated. We have worked with partners to quantify the financial memorandum, which outlines around £11 million per year of additional spend. We are listening to views coming forward at stage 1, and we will, of course, consider where further work can be done as scrutiny progresses. I am more than happy to keep the committee updated on that. I will have a visit to the finance committee next week, where we will discuss some of the finances in more detail. Just for the sake of brevity, do you accept what COSLA is saying about the inaccuracy of the costings in the financial memorandum, specifically around the social work costs? I accept what they are saying. Witnesses are absolutely more than welcome to give their opinion. I have already said that the numbers fluctuate, so I do not think that there are inaccuracies, but they need to be updated. I am a bit confused, because you said that you accept that there are inaccuracies. No, I do not accept. Do you ask me if I accepted what they said? I said that I accept what they said. Witnesses are free to say what they are saying. As factual? No, that would be of their opinion. You do not agree that COSLA's evidence is factual? Sorry? You do not agree that COSLA's evidence is factual? I think that we are going in circles here. Do you accept that the evidence that they presented is factual in its context? Factual in its context, yes, but as I have said that— You agree that there are inaccuracies in the financial memorandum? Not inaccuracies, but it needs to be updated. Do you also accept what they say about the fact that there is no facility to transfer costs from the criminal justice system to local government? Well, I accept what they say in terms of local government funding. Mr Kerr is perfectly aware of how that works, so I am not going to get into that at the moment for the interest of time. We have some time on the— So you would like me to go through the— No, no, I would rather— I would rather take— I would rather take— See even Mr Kerr, can I just come in? Yes. I think that I want to— We have heard a lot of evidence around the concerns when you have spoken to yourself about the long-term aspirations and cost savings that this will make to society. What we are saying is that right now there is no mechanism to transfer the savings from the justice system into local government, children, families and social work. What is the Government going to do to address that imbalance? Well, we are listening to views, and as I have been very clear throughout this entire committee session that we are happy to look at this going forward, there is no plans for that at the moment. No, but that is something that can be addressed going forward if the requirement is there. Yes. So I am trying to unpack what COSLA has told us about the implications for costs arising from what is in the financial memorandum accompanying the bill. And they highlight, as has already been said, the impact on social services in terms of the inaccuracy of the costs. I am still not clear whether you accept what they are saying in the basis. I will move on on that. Do you also accept the issue about the difficulty, if perhaps in the view of COSLA impossibility, of transferring savings that will occur theoretically in the criminal justice system into local government in order to, as was outlined by the convener, what was your response to that? I believe that the ministers responded to my saying that it would be a decision. But I did not cash. Well, it was answered, Mr Kerr, in the fact that they said that they were listening to, but it was not something that they were at the stage doing anything to address. Right. So finally, the point that COSLA makes is in relation to the additional resource that is required for the local area support teams, the people who actually arrange the children's hearings. Do you accept that they are going to need increased costs for a whole range of staff and functions that they do not currently fulfil? Yes. If they require extra funding, then that is simply the case. And as I have said, that will have to be looked at going forward once the bill has progressed. But it is critical to the function of what will be required by statute of local authorities. Do you accept that? I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? The costs are critical to the function of what would be a statute. Therefore, the Government will meet the funding requirements in order to make that happen, will they? The Government will meet the funding requirements required to enact the bill and the provisions within the bill. I can't give any further information on that. That is a significant comment. Mr Kerr, I have a number of other members wanting to come in on this. Yes, okay, but I think that that is a significant thing that the Minister just said. If the Government will fund the additional funding. That's right. I've got Pam, who has asked to come in first, if you don't mind. Pam Duncan-Clancy, please. Thank you for that. I just have two small points on what's been raised. The point about transferring funding from justice to other services, how do your justice colleagues feel about that? I'm sorry, how do my justice colleagues feel about that? About moving some of the money from that system. So, as far as I'm aware, that is not going ahead at the moment, but what I've said is that that can be looked at going forward. That's final supplementary from yourself. Thank you. My other question was on inaccuracies that social work Scotland have highlighted and they have called them inaccuracies in upgrading, meaning that the financial memorandum, as they've said, is out by half a million pounds. So they've asked specifically, and I'd be keen to hear your view on this minister, what's your view on updating the estimates for inflation before there is a bid made for the budget so that there is the situation that arose with the carer Scotland Bill in 2015, which missed eight years of inflation by 2023. So it would avoid that. Are you prepared to commit to do that? So I agree that that should be upgraded and as I've mentioned to the committee, I am going to be going through the financial details of this in greater detail at the Finance Committee next week. So I'd encourage members to tune in to that for more information on that later. Mr McPherson, sorry for making you wait so long. No problem, thank you. I'll just try and bring some of this together in terms of what other members of Mr Kerr and Pamdolff and Glancy have asked. To me, it seems that you've stated that you take the evidence from COSLA in good faith as their position, was how I interpreted your answer to Mr Kerr. But also I think it's important to recall that as a Parliament and as a collective local government, national government and a cross-party, we are committed to meeting the promise and that's the essence of this legislation. So in that spirit and having had the feedback from local government and the feedback from other stakeholders with the garden cost, I think that the message from committee is that we encourage the Government to have further dialogue with local government and other partners on those costings and how those are met through the budgetary processing due course through the Parliament to commit to passing this legislation. Absolutely, Mr McPherson. I think that I've been very clear throughout the entirety of the committee session that we are listening and we are engaging and we are working with the relevant stakeholders at each of the different aspects of this bill and obviously the finance has been a core part of that. So yes, absolutely. Thank you, Mr McPherson. It's been an informative session as ever this morning so I'd like to thank everyone for your time today and the public part of our meeting has now concluded and we will consider our final two agenda items in private.